In the wake of the US missile attack on Osama bin Ladin, the media claimed that Osama had declared a jihad against the US. Also that he would attack US military and civilian targets. I was quite shocked at this revelation. I had little information about Osama. I only knew that he was a multi-millionaire who had given up all the luxuries to fight in the Afghan jihad. For this reason I held him in high esteem. Therefore although the statement shocked me, I felt that someone who had literally traded his life on this planet for the afterlife must have some good reason for making such a declaration.

I began to think about the relationship between civilians, politics and war and engaged in a mental experiment. My knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence is limited and I do not seek to pass judgement. I am simply presenting a different perspective that I think the reader will understand.

Under any reasonable moral system you cannot murder without "reason". The question then becomes "what ‘reason’ is sufficient for killing people?" This question is open-ended. For example some people argue that killing is not justified under any circumstances, others justify capital punishment for murder. I leave this question to one side, and instead concentrate on the question of responsibility. Specifically, "what responsibility do civilians bear for the actions of their military?"

I will discuss the following scenarios to show that the amount of responsibility changes with the mode of government: a totalitarian government in conflict, a democratic government in an unpopular war and a democratic government in a popular war. In the first case of a totalitarian government policy is decided by certain elements of the ruling elite. The civilian population is suppressed and has virtually no power. In this scenario it would be unreasonable to hold the civilian population responsible for their government’s actions. Any action against these civilians by a small group of fighters should be regarded as "terrorism". Oppressive kingships, pseudo-democracies etc. can be understood in a similar way. An example of such a conflict is the Afghan war.

In the second case of a democratically elected government waging an unpopular war, it would be also be unreasonable to assign responsibility to the people. Since in this scenario the leaders are going against the wishes of the populace. The domestic popular uprising against the US war in Vietnam can illustrate this case.

The third case of a democratic government engaged in a popular war is more complex. In an ideal democracy the government can be described as "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." Under this scenario the majority acts as the decision-making force. The United States seems to be approaching this ideal.

Polling has become such important way of measuring the public response that it is becoming harder for the US government to institute initiatives that would be unacceptable to the electorate. The US is nearing the ideal of a true democracy where the action or inaction of US citizens has the potential to determine what will happen in the rest of the world. Therefore it is ironic that international issues are not a major concern of the average American. He/she is more interested in the economy: successful businesses, careers and mortgage payments. Yet, the average American holds the reins of the most powerful war machinery in the world. This machinery is being used in the Middle East and in the Balkans because the American President knows that the public supports his foreign policy initiatives. The consequences could be devastating. One day Bombay: Indians are not liberalising their trade fast enough. The next day Riyadh; those Arabs are manipulating oil prices.

This is the crux of the problem: The US public allows its government to make decisions that can alienate a billion people by hurting their religious and cultural sensibilities. By staying in Saudi Arabia, the US is performing an act that is abhorrent to Muslims of all ethnic origin. I do not know of one Muslim who wants the Americans to remain in Saudi Arabia. Osama represents the sentiments of these Muslims. He is willing to fight a war. Why does the us persist with policies that no muslim wants? The people of the US need to understand this. They must also understand how powerful a weapon they wield and the seriousness of the consequences of their support for foreign policy issues. This is the price of new style democracy. Americans are responsible for their actions. They must take this responsibility seriously.

The US civilian is acting as the ultimate Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. The media is feeding him incomplete bits of information on which to base his decisions. Are we to say that the people who are making these decisions, whether out of ignorance or not, are not responsible for their actions that are affecting billions of people? Does not the power that goes with being the most powerful nation necessarily put the burden on the US public? Does the distinction between civilians and military diminish the closer you get to democracy?

It seems that the evolution of democracy in the information age is leading to a situation where Western governments are becoming the "pulse takers" of their people. Hence the people are becoming more directly responsible for the actions of their governments. In my personal opinion, President Bush followed public opinion very closely before formulating his policy in Desert Storm.

In the past the issue of leadership was one of moral leadership based on values. This notion has been replaced by a version of leadership where the short-term goals of the next polls seem to have significant effect on executive action. Is this the general evolution of democracy? Then it becomes imperative to design systems to sensitise and educate the population about international relations and world politics.